SACair Forum

[quote="lifesagame"][quote="tommyknocker2121"]

MMM BBQ

ok, all previous knowledge and questionable test results aside. Ask yourself this: What would cause the softer bb material to do less damage to an object than a comparable size/weight bb of a harder material? The softer bb does less damage because it is able to compress or shatter or in some way deform, which lessens the blow to the object being struck. Now in the case of human skin and a regular .25g bb, how much do you think the BB is being deformed when it hits the skin to dissipate the kinetic energy?

[quote]

but in the iron vs feather case, the feathers flex more easily than your head, which is why they take most of the energy in flexing on impact than your head does. in the case of bbs vs skin, your skin simply is too soft to let the white plastic bbs flex a little, if any at all, when it strikes the skin, and I would not be surprised if there's no difference at all between the two bb materials. It is not a question as to whether or not the white bb's are softer or not, it's a question of whether or not skin is anywhere near being tough enough to cause a white bb to flex, shatter, or deform. I think there's too much of a hardness difference and it would be like dropping a wooden ball into water compared to dropping an aluminum ball into a tub of playdough. Although the wood is softer, you're probably not going to see it dent unless the impact with the playdough is at some insane velocity. If you took something much softer and similar in hardness to playdough, then you would start to see some deforming at lower velocities than required to get the wood or aluminum to deform, resulting in less of a dent in the playdough. You could get a white bb to dent hitting water if you had a high enough velocity long before a clear bioval would dent or shatter, but it's clear in that case that theres not going to be a difference between the two materials. What I'm suggesting is that before we bash the clear bbs for being able to do more damage to human skin, we have to find the point at which the white bb's start to deform, where the biovals still would not. I'm saying that once you find that point, the velocity is going to be something insane that is far above sacair or even practical physical limits.

[quote="the22ice"]but in the iron vs feather case, the feathers flex more easily than your head, which is why they take most of the energy in flexing on impact than your head does. in the case of bbs vs skin, your skin simply is too soft to let the white plastic bbs flex a little, if any at all, when it strikes the skin, and I would not be surprised if there's no difference at all between the two bb materials. It is not a question as to whether or not the white bb's are softer or not, it's a question of whether or not skin is anywhere near being tough enough to cause a white bb to flex, shatter, or deform. I think there's too much of a hardness difference and it would be like dropping a wooden ball into water compared to dropping an aluminum ball into a tub of playdough. Although the wood is softer, you're probably not going to see it dent unless the impact with the playdough is at some insane velocity. If you took something much softer and similar in hardness to playdough, then you would start to see some deforming at lower velocities than required to get the wood or aluminum to deform, resulting in less of a dent in the playdough. You could get a white bb to dent hitting water if you had a high enough velocity long before a clear bioval would dent or shatter, but it's clear in that case that theres not going to be a difference between the two materials. What I'm suggesting is that before we bash the clear bbs for being able to do more damage to human skin, we have to find the point at which the white bb's start to deform, where the biovals still would not. I'm saying that once you find that point, the velocity is going to be something insane that is far above sacair or even practical physical limits.[/quote]

go shoot an old window pane with a 400fps .25

[quote="wraith667"]go shoot an old window pane with a 400fps .25

have you had a BB go through the window but not break it mikey?

yes. I'd take a pic but I don't have the window anymore.

[quote="wraith667"]go shoot an old window pane with a 400fps .25

Usually when you get shot the skin flexes and compresses against bone, increasing in density the closer the BB pushes towards the bone, which I could see effecting the BB.

[quote="XpoisonfreeX"]Usually when you get shot the skin flexes and compresses against bone, increasing in density the closer the BB pushes towards the bone, which I could see effecting the BB.

I'd say that more than any glass, metal, ballistics gel and pig carcass shooting are all well and good tests.

Bioval .27 BB's will not be banned here.

wow andrew and his final word... suprised he didn't just delete the thread

And...it's time to revive this topic with a new study.

Hmm seems to point to less damage from the Bioval .27 gram BB because it doesn't deform on impact. Also pointing out that they are the most spherical and most consistent density, which would explain why they fly so well.

I say it's not the BB that's the problem but the person using it.

agreed.I feel that the quote: " Know your Target, and whats beyond it", fits very will with this. The shooter should also know what his ammo is capable of.

[quote="Andrew"]Bioval .27 BB's will not be banned here.

I'm actually in Germany, but recently moved from NorCal. We had a 2-day Op here in Germany in October and the main sponsor was selling Bioval BBs (0.20 and 0.25 g).

i'l try to get Sean to publish more reasoning as to why but heres a snippit from his 24 our notice

[quote="Robman"]

are you using a tightbore barrel, madbull or "hard" hop up?

[quote="wraith667"]are you using a tightbore barrel, madbull or "hard" hop up?[/quote]

totally threw my idea out the window lol Jas! Either way i'm still avoiding .27 because of the vibration absorbing tendancies of the material.

nm

[quote="Chris413"]ok, so as kinda a noob on Biovals...